HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2006, PH 1 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZON COUnat 9/
(�
EA acEnaa uEpmt
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirecVl"Prepared Byc Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND REZONING FROM R-2-
PD TO R-3 AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION
OF AN EXISTING INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY INTO A
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT AT THE WINDERMERE
CONDOMINIUMS. (GP/R/ER/MS 45-06)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land
use designation for the site from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential, approving a minor subdivision to allow the recreation unit to be sold as a
condominium unit and approving a Negative Declaration (ER 45-06).
2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from R-2-PD to R-3.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 1106 Oceanaire Drive
Applicant: Larry Smith (Windermere Homeowner's Association)
Zonings R-2 PD (Medium-Density Residential Planned Development)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental: General Plan map amendments are subject to CEQA review. A draft
Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by the
interim Deputy Director on May 3, 2006.
Background
The Homeowner's Association (HOA) of Windermere Condominiums would like to convert the
existing on-site recreation room and spa facility into a 2-bedroom residence. Since the existing
condominium project (with or without the proposed new unit) exceeds the density limits of the
R-2 zone, the applicants are proposing to rezone the property to R-3. The new zoning will allow
the HOA to establish the additional dwelling unit while remaining within density standards.
Additionally the HOA would like to sell the unit as a condominium unit, therefore a subdivision
map is requested. The site and project description are further discussed in the attached Planning
Commission staff report (Attachment 5).
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 45-06
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 2
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on May 10, 2006 and voted 6-1 to recommend
approval of the General Plan amendment and subdivision to the City Council. Commissioner
Stevenson voted against the proposal because he felt that the addition of one residential unit was
overshadowed by the loss of the recreation unit. However, the applicant testified that the
recreation unit had become a liability problem and was subject to frequent vandalism. The
Commission's action included conditions to ensure that logical replacement recreation amenities
be included in the project to compensate for the loss of the recreation unit. These conditions
included a condition of approval that the HOA reserve an easement to Prefumo Creek for future
trail access and a condition that the HOA construct improvements to the common area to include
outdoor passive recreation amenities. The Planning Commission resolution, hearing minutes and
staff report are attached (Attachments 3,4 and 5).
General Plan Consistency
Residential density for the R-2 district is 12 units per acre in accordance with Table 4 in the
General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed map amendment would modify the General Plan
map to Medium-High Density Residential allowing up to 18 units per acre. The existing
condominium project is non-conforming since it currently is "over density" with a density equal
to approximately 14.5 units per acre. As proposed, the addition of one dwelling unit would
increase the density to roughly 15 units per acre. Modifying the General Plan designation and
zoning to R-3 would allow the existing condominiums and the proposed new unit to conform to
R-3 density standards. Due to existing site constraints such as parking, and the existing layout of
the individually owned condominiums, it is unlikely that additional units would be added in the
near future and there are no plans for additional development.
As noted in the following General Plan Land. Use Element description of the Medium-High
Density Residential district, the existing Windermere condominium project closely meets this
definition:
LU 2.4.7 Medium-High Density Residential
Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings,
with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces.
Furthermore, the General Plan Housing Element endorses the rezoning of areas that are
conducive to higher density infill housing, when it is appropriate. In this case, considering other
adjacent properties on Los Osos Valley Road with the same zoning, the applicants request to
amend the General Plan LUE and Zoning maps to allow a slightly higher density is consistent
with General Plan Policy and creates a logical zoning pattern.
Condominium Property Development Standards
In the R-3 zone, condominium projects are required to incorporate common area recreation
amenities at the rate of 40 square feet per unit. The requirement for a 50-unit project is 2,000
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 45-06
1106 Oceanaire.Drive
Page 3
square feet of outdoor recreation area. Since the applicants are removing the indoor recreation
unit, they are proposing to incorporate a passive use recreation area within the common green
space in the central courtyard of the development. As proposed, the total area of the amenities
would meet the minimum 2,000 square foot requirement. Planning Commissioners commented
that the common area amenities needed additional refinements, however the Commission
endorsed the proposal.
Common Area Improvements
Since this condominium development is governed by a homeowner's association and the
proposed recreation improvements are within a common area, all of the property owners must
vote on proposed changes. Although the majority of the homeowners agreed to the conversion
and the construction of outdoor passive recreation uses, many of the owners stated their concerns
over potential noise impacts resulting from people gathering within the central courtyard.
Incorporation of required improvements in the common area could become problematic if the
homeowners cannot agree on the proposed amenities. If the improvements cannot be constructed,
the project will not be able to fulfill the condominium recreation amenity requirements, and
conversion of the recreation unit would conflict with the requirements for recreation amenities as
prescribed by the City's Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.17.030). The Planning Commission
included a condition of approval that requires the common area improvements to be completed,
prior to the conversion of the recreation unit.
Planning Commission Required Easement
In addition to the on-site recreation amenities, the Planning Commission required an easement to
be secured at the northeast property line to allow pedestrian access to the creek. This easement
would be utilized by the City in the future to provide a pathway and pedestrian bridge to a small
pocket park on Vista Lag
o and ultimately serve as a connection to Laguna Middle School and the
surrounding neighborhood. The easement.would be within or adjacent to an existing driveway
and parking area that serves the Windermere condominiums. This easement would implement a
trail access that has been identified in the City's draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. At this time
there is no funding secured or plans established to construct the improvements, however it is a
logical time to secure the easement that could be used by the City at some point in the future. The
potential location of such a pedestrian pathway would allow a direct link between the sidewalk
on Oceanaire Boulevard and the adjacent neighborhood surrounding Laguna Middle School. At
this time, the HOA believes that the homeowners will not unanimously support the recordation
of this easement since it requires that 100% of the homeowners agree to it. Therefore, the
applicants are asking that the Council remove this condition. This condition is appropriate
considering the loss of the required recreation amenity that would only be replaced by passive
recreation area in the central courtyard and is a logical prerequisite to the request.
Where Do We Go From Here?
As with any condominium project, significant modifications to common areas can be problematic
/-3
j � S
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 45-06
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 4.
due to the fact that homeowners must vote on such changes and ultimately reach an agreement. In
regards to a new easement on a common area, or the subdivision and sale of property within a
common area (such as the recreation unit in this proposal) these decisions require 100%
homeowner approval. It is uncertain that the HOA will be successful at reaching a decision
whereby all of the homeowners agree to the City required conditions and allowing the sale of the
recreation unit. However, the HOA is aware of these pitfalls and would like the City to make a
determination as to whether the zone change can be approved. If the applicant is unable to
complete the conditions, then the City will not approve construction plans to modify the
recreation unit or record the map to allow the sale of the recreation unit. However, regardless of
the conditions, the zoning should be amended to R-3 to better reflect the existing conditions at
the property. Although this is a significant undertaking just to add one residential unit, the R-3
zoning is also appropriate to reflect the density of the existing condominium development.
CONCURRENCES
The rezone request has been reviewed by other City departments including Public Works,
Utilities, Building and Fire. Other departments support the request with the proposed conditions.
The Transportation Division and the City's Natural Resources Manager support the incorporation
of an easement to cross Prefumo Creek as a means to allow a future neighborhood connection.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the General Plan for this
location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will not result in
significant changes to this property. The property is already developed to its full potential and
would not see significant changes even with a redevelopment.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Consider other zoning options that may be appropriate for this site considering the
existing and proposed continuation of the land use. The Council may wish to leave the
zoning as is, or modify the zoning to R-3 while still retaining the PD zone overlay. The
original purposed of the PD zone was to adopt a density bonus.
2. Deny the General Plan amendment and rezoning based on findings of inconsistency with
the General Plan or other policy documents. If the Council believes that R-3 zoning is
inconsistent with the site or vicinity, than the zoning should remain the same.
3. Continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff
and the applicant as to specific items that should return to Council.
i 1
Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 45-06
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Applicant's General Plan amendment request and project description, April 28, 2006
3. Planning Commission Resolution
4. Planning Commission.minutes May 10, 2006
5. Planning Commission staff report
6. Initial Study of Environmental Impact
7. Draft Resolution
8. Draft Ordinance
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rewning&PDAWindemere GPR 45-06\45-06 Council rpt(09-19-06).doe
/ -S
Iwo _
,♦ o
` r
s
VICINITY M
Afir, G P
Attachment 2
April 28, 2006 Wk]ACE GROUP
Phil Dunsmore CIVIL ENGINEERING
Community Development Department. CONSTRUCTION
990 Palm Street MANAGEMENT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
MECHANICAL
Subject:Windermere Condominium General Plan Amendment Request&TTM ENGINEERING
PLANNING
Dear Phil:
PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION
At the request of the Homeowner's Association Board, a survey was sent out to all 49 SURVEYING /
owners asking for input on the proposed outdoor recreation improvements. Attached GIS SOLUTIONS
is a copy of the cover letter and survey, for your reference. We received a total of 28 WATER RESOURCES
responses out of 49 sent out, or about 57% of owners - a pretty good return rate for a
survey. The majority who responded have indicated support for the conversion WALLACE INTERNATIONAL
proposal with replacement outdoor recreation and generally approved the landscape
concept, although many have qualified their support with concerns. Five out of 28
(17.8% of responders, or 10.2% of total owners) indicated opposition to any
landscape changes at all, citing added expense and/or a preference for the existing
conditions as reasons.
Methodology
We mailed the surveys out to all owners and posted a copy on the notice board at the
complex, with information on contacting Wallace Group to obtain more information
either by email, telephone or fax. In tallying the responses, please note that many
who returned the surveys did not respond in all areas, or did not rank their
preferences in order as requested. If responses were not ranked in order of
preference, all items checked were counted as a first preference. A blank, or no
response, was counted as zero. Some of the survey forms had no answers checked
but had write-in comments only. With such a small sample size, rather than throw out
the incomplete forms, we did our best to accurately summarize the results.
Also, two of the surveys were received well after the tally deadline bringing the actual
response percentage up to 61%. Both were in favor of the landscape plan. However,
these were not included in the summary contained in this letter, as they were not part
of the results discussed at the Homeowner's Association meeting of April 10. Several
owners came to the meeting to discuss the survey and landscape changes. Minutes WALLACE GROUP
from this meeting and a resolution accepting the survey results and landscape F California Corporation
concept are attached.
4115 BROAD ST
Results SUITE B-5
SAN LUIS OBISPO
Unwanted noise was identified as the primary concern. Because the Windermere. CALIFORNIA 93401
units do not have central air conditioning, in the summertime windows are open,
further amplifying noise impacts. Several owners pointed out that.a fire pit is a liability FT 805 805 544-4011
risk and either a fire pit or a BBQ in the central quad area would create an air quality
ww/jw.walllaacc7egrou p.us.
Phil Dunsmore Attachment 2
April 28, 2006
Page 2
hazard. The owners also expressed a strong concern regarding the potential for non-
resident use of facilities, which was an issue with the recreational building. The
majority of owners support recreational uses that encourage quiet outdoor use and do
not encourage late night parties or large gatherings.
WALLACE GROUP
Our suggestion is to substitute a fountain for the firepit/BBQ because the ambient
water sound will help reduce unwanted noise impacts from persons using the outdoor
areas. If the City can approve the final replacement recreation plan as improved area
with seating, trellis arbors and a fountain that also provides level areas for croquet
and Bocci Ball, the landscape plan should satisfy the needs and concerns of the
owners. We would also suggest not lighting the outdoor seating area to help
discourage nighttime use.
1. Type of Outdoor Use ranked in order of preference:
First Choice: Passive Recreation: 19 of 28, or 67.8% of response
Second Choice: Social Gathering Place: 6 of 28 or 21.4% of response
Third Choice: Active Recreation/Sports: 8 of 28 or 28.5% of response
Many responders checked only Passive Recreation and left blank or wrote "No"
under Active Recreation or Social Gathering Place.
2. Preferred Amenities Icheck all that applyi
Social Gathering Votes Received in %of Response %of all owners
Elements Surve Sam le out of 28 out of 49
BBQ Pit 8 28.5 % 16.3 %
Picnic Tables 9 32.1 % 18.3 %
Seatwalls 11 39.2% 22.4 %
Fire it 10 35.7% 120.4%
Passive Recreation
Elements
Knot/Herb Garden 5 17.8% 1.0%
Fountain 9 32.1% 18.3 %
Trellis/Arbor 13 46.4% 26.5 %
Gazebo 12 42.8 % 24.4%
Active Recreation
Elements
Bocci Ball Court 9 32.1% 18.3 %
Lawn Bowling 2 7.1 % -' 4.0%
Croquet 4 14.2 % 8.1 %
Golf Putting Green 5 17.8 % 1.0%
Workout Circuit 5 17.8% 1.0%
Basketball Hoop 10 10 10
Improvements receiving 9 or more votes (30% or more), in order of preference:
a. Trellis/Arbor
b. Gazebo
c. Seatwalls
d. Fire Pit
e. Picnic tables, fountain, Bocci Ball court (equally tied)
Phil Dunsmore Attachment 2
April 28, 2006
Page 3
Other Ideas:
• Statue, Bird Bath, Sun Dial, Pet Waste Station
• Frame lawn areas with low wall to prevent cars from driving/parking on them
WALLACE GROUP
3.
Primary Concerns check all that apply
Votes received in %of Response % of all owners
Survey Sample out of 28 out of 49
Noise 22 78.5% 44.8%
Privacy 12 42.8 % 24.4 %
Aesthetics 14 50.0% 28.5%
Retain Site Character 17 60.7 % 134.6%
Maintenance 119 167.8 % 138.7%
ILiability 117 160.7% 134.6 %
Top three concerns:
f. Noise
g. Maintenance
h. Liability (fire), Retaining Site Character(equally tied)
Other Concerns:
• Use by outside non-residents
• Air Quality (BBQ & Fire Pit smoke entering windows)
• Car damage from balls
• Parking or driving on lawns
• Trash left by users of public area
Based on the mailing address information, it appears that 26 owners do not live on
the site and therefore rent the units out, and 23 units are owner-occupied. With 53%
of the units occupied by tenants, many of whom are college age, the resident owners
have expressed concern that the recreation facilities should not be oriented to the
college-age tenants but to the owners who live there.
This information should be included in your staff report for the rezone/GPA. If you
need to see the survey forms or other supporting data, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Cindy Lewis
Associate Planner
cc: Larry Smyth, Farrell-Smyth Realty
Attachment: Blank copy of Letter&Survey
Windermere HOA Meeting Minutes
MA638-FartalhSmyfh Condo ConverionlConespondencolDunsmom LETR Survey 412-06.doc
/- 9
- Attachment 2
W
Co
U
W
v 3
�O o
IEHR o 0 3
IbI
•) g p
•\ 8
e 8
�g
`\\N
YZ
CL
\ ��..\\,\ •,,'\\\\\) \11,1 � ;--- -____- l% , �- \� ;' ,/,!
Attachmant 2
JillE $ S ry
o Qap Z2cc
❑a Of ❑G 00 os
Kc
cc
Lill. a
p mom
��ehm ��S�aT� {}a oG of Oa
QO
In
0
99
\`a c „x o`
'm c �€ 4 a
ng �mUU � R o as
a c�
i
U
a
:C
BSat�
of
-� Attachment 2
o Q � _ oLU
N ycna
C4 W
h
CL
s # -86 ► eg 3 e W Z YJ o
aa 5
mu'� a o
d $ W m� .1 Eo�6 •i0 �`ke� b 3�v"i^aa� � � � §o E
Kill W91'L .91'L
.StS
m
_o
�sro
m m = v> o
� J y
N
Q
m m =4
v
WS[v y 43a
W1t W11'E M Y
..,
5 m
vests Waz w9rz p
Wts'i Q
•`'� - .€ Yom,
m
E�
ab g a L
'^ o
r Kin
J II II y
ti J C
O U_ -
� � 5
o cal
Watts = cn _
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5450-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECCOMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATION
FROM R-2-PD TO R-3 AND APPROVAL OF A MINOR.SUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY AT 1106 OCEANAIRE DRIVE
GP/R/MS/ER 45-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the.City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 10, 2006 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/MS/ER 45-06,
Windermere Homeowner's Association', applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and
reflects the independent judgment of the Commission.
2. The proposed General Plan map amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element policies regarding multi-family residential zoning since the existing project is
consistent with the Medium High Density Residential land use description and the project is
within a location that creates a logical extension of the R-3 district.
3. The proposed project is consistent with .the City's General Plan Housing Element since it
logically allows for higher density residential zoning and an additional dwelling unit without
impacting adjacent properties or the existing layout of the condominiums.
4. The proposed recreation amenities are suitable to replace the indoor recreation amenities and
comply with the intent of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
5. The proposed minor subdivision to allow the individual sale of one new residential unit in
place of the recreation unit is consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations.
Attachment 3
Resolution 5450-06
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Windermere Condominiums
Page 2
6. The pedestrian easement will supply necessary recreational amenities to the condominium
project as required by the Municipal Code for large scale condominium projects in the R-3
zone, since the proposed path and bridge will allow direct access to a public park.
7. The pedestrian easement is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies, LU
2.1.4, 2.2.6 and 2.2.12 which encourage the incorporation of neighborhood linkages and
pedestrian connections.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of a General Plan LUE map amendment from
Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential and rezoning from R-2-PD to
R-3 as shown on attached Exhibit A, approval of a minor subdivision to allow one new airspace
condominium unit and adoption of said Negative Declaration (ER 45-06), with incorporation of
the following project conditions:
Conditions:
1. The drainage easement at the northeasterly property line shall be preserved and modified to
accommodate the existing drainage culvert below the parking and driveway area.
2. A ten-foot wide easement shall be provided adjacent to the northeast property line to allow
for public pedestrian access to Prefumo Creek. This easement will not be utilized until such
a time that the City constructs improvements to allow a path and bridge over the creek to
access the existing park on Vista Lago.
3. A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to
recordation of the map. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, site
drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any utility company meters for each
parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations shall be completed with proper permits prior to
recordation of the map. Otherwise, easements shall be prepared and recorded to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and serving
utility companies.
4. An architectural review application (ARCMI) shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development prior to issuance of construction permits for the conversion of the
recreation building and construction of the garage. The application shall include proposed
improvements to the common area to include replacement recreation amenities.
5. The common area recreation amenities shall be completed prior to occupancy of the new
residential unit or prior to recordation of a final map to allow individual sale of the unit.
Attachment 3
Resolution 5450-06
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Windermere Condominiums
Page 3
On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Ashbaugh,Brown, Carter, Christianson,McCoy,Miller
NOES: Stevenson
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of May, 2006.
Pamela Ricci, Secretyly
Planning Commission
GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDslWindemere GPR 45-06\PC Reso GPR 45-06.doc
_ T
} ' Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 10, 2006
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Peter Brown,
Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice Chairperson Carlyn Christianson
and Chairperson Andrea Miller
Absent: None
Staff: Interim Deputy Director Pamela Ricci, Associate Planners Phil
Dunsmore and Jaime Hill, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick,
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner, and Recording
Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 26, 2006
The minutes of April 26, 2006 were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1106 Oceanaire Dr. GP/R and ER 45-06: Request to amend the General Plan
Land Use Element Map from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density
Residential and the Zoning Map from R-2-PD to R-3 to allow one additional dwelling
unit in place of an existing residential facility, including a tentative condominium
subdivision map; R-2-PD zone; Larry Smith, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment
and rezoning to allow creation of a new condominium unit, and approval of the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact.
Cindy Lewis, applicant's representative, discussed ideas for recreation use, and noted
that the addition of an easement was an issue that the homeowner's association may
have a problem with.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Shirley Powell, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with the changes to the outdoor
recreation areas in terms of cost, maintenance issues, and noise, and also opposed the
Planning Commission Mint' !
May 10, 2006 Attachment 4
Page 2
easement requirement.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, had concerns with the necessity forthis project and
felt that Homeowner's Association dues would need to be raised to cover improvements
such as the easement.
There were no further comments made from the public..
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
There was extensive discussion regarding recreation amenities that should occur in the
common open space area. The Commission generally agreed that the staff, proposed
public easement to Prefumo Creek was a valuable project amenity that was warranted,
given the proposed conversion of the recreation unit into a residential unit. They also
determined that staff would need to work with the homeowner's association to refine the
required recreation amenities prior to the City Council hearing.
Commr. Christianson stated that the Commission's focus should be on whether the
request meets applicable requirements, and expressed her concerns with the easement
requirement.
Commr. Miller questioned the details of the easement and agreed with Commr.
Christianson that the easement should not be a condition.
On motion by Commr. Christianson to approve the request as recommended by staff
without condition #2 which requires a public easement to Prefumo Creek Seconded by
Commr. Carter. This motion was withdrawn following further discussion
Commr. Carter questioned the definition of "landscape area" versus "recreation area"
and expressed that the easement is a good idea but that improvements make it difficult
to provide a workable access.
Commr. McCoy expressed concerns with the elimination of the recreation area and
noted that a barbecue grill may not be the best idea because night use would be limited.
However, he felt the easement is necessary to link the development with open space
areas.
Commr. Ashbaugh asked about residential standards pertaining to recreation areas,
and asked if different uses for the recreation building had been considered.
Commr. Stevenson asked if the environmental document addressed additional noise
impacts, questioned the problem of vandalism, and opposed the project because of the
loss of the indoor recreation unit.
Commr. Christianson questioned requirements for the R-2 zone versus the R-3 zone,
noting that if most of the requirements have been met, the project should go forward.
Commr. Brown supported staffs recommendation, including the easement.
� �7
. Planning Commission Mini ) Attachment 4
May 10, 2006
-Page 3
On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend approval of the map amendment
from R-2-PD to R-3 and a subdivision map to allow the additional condominium unit, to
the City Council, provided that staff refines Condition 2 and the HOA votes on the
easement issue prior to the City Council hearing. Seconded by Commr. Brown.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson, Carter, McCoy and Miller
NOES: Commr. Stevenson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
2. 562 Sandercock St TR and ER 202-05` Review of air space condominium map (5
units plus a common lot); R-2 zone; Mike Sathre, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Associate Planner Jaime Hill presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
recommend to the City Council adoption of the condominium tract map and Negative
Declaration, noting that the project includes a density bonus for the dedication of one
unit as an affordable dwelling.
Aaron Gannage, applicant's representative; spoke in support of the project and was
available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kirk Collins, Principal of Hawthorne Elementary School, expressed concerns with
parking and the trash enclosure location.
John Henrich, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern with parking, the elimination of the
mulberry tree, and added noise.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commission discussion focused on parking and density.
Commr. Brown asked staff if the project is consistent with the General Plan and
expressed opposition to monitoring the use of the garages.
Commr. Carter questioned the potential parking problems.
Commr: McCoy supported staffs condition requiring that driveways be kept clear and
only used for parking when necessary.
On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend the Council approve the
condominium tract map and negative declaration, with the elimination of condition #7
which required one year review of the trash collection and adding conditions that would
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522 MEETING DATE: May 10, 2006
FROM: Pam Ricci, Interim Deputy Director- Development Review
FILE NUMBER: GP/R/ER/MS 45-06
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1106 Oceanaire Drive
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed General Plan Amendment to modify the Land Use Element
Map (LUE) from Medium-Density.to Medium-High Density Residential and rezoning from R-2-
PD to R-3 to allow the conversion of an existing indoor recreational facility into a residential
condominium unit at the Windermere condominiums.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment to modify the Land Use
Element Map (LUE) from Medium-Density to Medium-High Density Residential and rezoning
from R-2-PD to R-3, approve a minor subdivision to allow for the creation of a new
condominium unit, and approve Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The Homeowners Association (HOA) of Windermere Condominiums would like to convert the
existing on-site recreation room and spa facility into a 2-bedroom residence. Originally, the
applicants were seeking an amendment to the Planned Development (PD) to allow the additional
unit. However, the Planning Commission reviewed this item on December 14, 2005 and
determined that a General Plan amendment and re-zoning from R-2-PD to R-3 was the
appropriate method to allow the additional density since the existing development exceeds R-2
density standards and neighboring development is already zoned R-3. The new zoning will allow
the HOA to establish the additional dwelling unit while remaining within density standards. At
this time, the applicants are seeking Planning Commission endorsement of the General Plan Map
amendment from Medium-Density to Medium-High Density, rezoning from R-2-PD to R-3, and
a minor subdivision to allow individual sale of the proposed new residential unit. The Planning
Commission's action would be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council.
Data Summary
Address: 1106 Oceanaire Drive
Applicant: Larry Smith (Windermere Homeowner's Association)
Zoning: R-2 PD (Medium-Density Residential Planned Development)
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
r . Attachment 5
GP/R/ER/MS 45-06 Windermere Condominiums
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 2
Environmental: General Plan map amendments are subject to CEQA review. A draft
Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by the
interim Deputy Director on May 3, 2006.
Site Description
The Windermere condominium development is a 49-unit complex that was constructed in 1980
on a 3.7 acre site at the corner of Oceanaire Drive and Los Osos Valley Road. There are forty 2-
bedroom units and nine 3-bedroom units (for a total site density of 53.5 dwelling units).The
northwest boundary of the site is bordered by Prefumo Creek. The existing condominiums are
laid out in a courtyard style setting,each with individual garages.
Proiect.Description
The project involves rezoning the property from R-2-PD to R-3. Since the Planned Development
zoning is no longer necessary to support density or design exceptions the new zoning would
eliminate the PD overlay zone. Following the rezone, the applicants would convert a freestanding
two-story recreation building containing several meeting rooms, a spa and sauna room, and
restroom facilities, into a residential unit. The proposed conversion of the recreation building to a
condominium residential unit would primarily involve interior alterations to convert the
community building to a two-bedroom residence. The footprint of the 2,015 square foot building
would not be enlarged; however, a new single-car garage would be constructed to serve the
proposed residential unit similar to existing garages serving adjacent units. The condominium
unit would be available for sale following completion of the remodeling and recordation of
subdivision map for the unit. Since condominium projects in the R-3 district require the
incorporation of recreation amenities, the removal of the recreation unit is proposed to be
compensated by the installation of outdoor passive recreation amenities within the common
green space in the center courtyard of the site. The amenities include a bocce ball court, a fire pit,
circular arbors with benches and paths.
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistencv,
The subject site is located in the Medium-Density residential zone (R-2-PD). Residential density
for the R-2 district is 12 units per acre in accordance with Table 4 in the General Plan Land Use
Element and as adopted by the Zoning Regulations. The proposed map amendment would
modify the General Plan map to Medium-High Density Residential allowing up to 18 units per
acre. The existing condominium project is non-conforming since it currently is "over density"
with 14.5 units per acre. The addition of another dwelling unit, as proposed would increase the
density to roughly 15 units per acre. Modifying the General Plan designation to R-3 would allow
a density of 18 units per acre and allows the existing condominiums and the proposed new unit to
conform to R-3 density standards. Due to existing site constraints such as parking, and the
existing layout of the individually owned condominiums, it is unlikely that additional units
would be added in the near future and there are no plans for additional development.
/- 2b
Attachment 5
GP/R/ER/MS 45-06 Windermere Condominiums
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 3
As noted in the following General Plan Land Use Element description of the Medium-High
Density Residential district, the existing Windermere condominium project closely meets this
definition:
LU 2.4.7 Medium-High Density Residential
Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings,
with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces.
Furthermore, the General Plan Housing Element endorses the rezoning of areas that are
conducive to higher density infill housing, when it is appropriate. In this case, considering other
adjacent properties on Los Osos Valley Road with the same zoning (see zoning map below), the
applicants request to amend the General Plan LUE and Zoning maps to allow a slightly higher
density is consistent with General Plan Policy and creates a logical zoning pattern.
Condominium Property Development Standards
When the Windermere condominium project was originally constructed, it was built as a Planned
Development and was required to provide on-site amenities such as a recreation facility. The
Planned Development allowed the project to exceed density standards while allowing for a
quality design. Although the Planned Development designation is no longer necessary to support
the density under R-3, the zone change from R-2 to R-3 zoning requires the project to incorporate
recreation amenities. Unlike the R-2 zone, R-3 requires that condominium projects of five or
more units incorporate common area recreation amenities at the rate of 40 square feet per unit.
The requirement for a 50-unit project is 2,000 square feet of outdoor recreation area. Since the
applicants are removing the indoor recreation unit, they are proposing to incorporate a passive
use recreation area within the common green space in the central courtyard of the development.
The southerly central courtyard circle, currently a grassy mound, would be regarded to provide a
level lawn area for passive activities, a central walkway would serve as a bocce ball court, and a
fire or barbeque pit area with seating would be provided. The total area of the amenities would
meet the minimum 2,000 square foot - —-
requirement.
Laguna
Since this condominium development is School C/OS-40
currently governed by a homeowner's _2
association and the proposed recreation
improvements are within a common area, _P
the association surveyed the owners and
held meetings to discuss the proposed
improvements. The results of the survey ,ode Proposed
are provided in a letter, Attachment 3. can w easement
Although the majority of the homeowners �� -2-
agreed to the conversion and the R-3 dos
construction of outdoor passive
recreation uses, many of the owners j
stated their concerns over potential noise � —
impacts resulting from people gathering
Attachrrant 5
GP/R/ER/MS 45-06 Windermere Condominiums
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 4
within the central courtyard. Presently, this courtyard is a quiet area that sees very little, if any,
activity. Due to the design of the units facing this common green area, residents are concerned
that any activities here will result in amplified noise that will echo between the condominium
units.
In addition to the on-site recreation amenities, staff is proposing a condition of approval that
requires an easement to be secured at the northeast property line to allow pedestrian access to the
creek. This easement would be utilized by the City.in the future to provide a pathway and
pedestrian bridge to a small pocket park on Vista Lago and ultimately serve as a connection to
Laguna Middle School and the surrounding neighborhood. The easement would be within an
existing driveway and parking area that serves the Windermere condominiums. Since there are
no pedestrian connections to Laguna Middle School from the Oceanaire neighborhood other than
Los Osos Valley Road, this is an important future neighborhood link. No other opportunities
exist within the neighborhood to provide such a connection. At this time there is no funding
secured or plans established to construct the improvements, however it is a logical time to secure
the easement that could be used by the City at some point in the future. The potential location of
such a pedestrian pathway would allow a direct link between the sidewalk on Oceanaire
Boulevard and the adjacent neighborhood surrounding Laguna Middle School. City staff,
including the Natural Resources Manager has evaluated the proposed bridge location and
determined that the proposed bridge location could be feasible. The map on the previous page
identifies the proposed location of the easement and potential bridge connection.
Conclusion
At this time, the applicant has followed the previous direction of the Planning Commission and
has provided logical justification for the proposed General Plan amendment and conversion of
the recreational unit into a residential unit. Although this is a significant undertaking just to add
one residential unit, staff believes that the R-3 zoning is also appropriate to reflect the density of
the existing condominium development.
Alternatives
1. Continue the item with specific direction to staff and the applicant.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. A denial recommendation should
include findings to support the Commission's recommendation.
Attached:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced project plans and applicants statement
3. Homeowner's survey results
4. Planning Commission meeting minutes, December 14, 2005.
5. Proposed draft negative declaration
6. Resolution "recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Minor
Subdivision and Negative Declaration to the City Council.
GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\Windemere GPR 45-06\45-06 PC rpt(05-10-06).doc
i
Attache-,t 9
city of san Luis ompo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#45-06
1. Project Title:
Windermere Condominiums General Plan Amendment
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Philip Dunmore (805) 781-7522
4. Project Location:
1106 Oceanaire Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Larry Smith (Windermere Homeowner's Association) 1106 Oceanaire Drive, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential Planned Development(R-2-PD)
8. Description of the Project:
The project involves a General Plan amendment and rezoning of the property. The Land Use
Element Map for the property would be amended from Medium-Density Residential to Medium-
High Density Residential. Consistent with this proposed change, the Zoning Map would be
amended from R-2-PD to R-3. Since the Planned Development zoning is no longer necessary to
support density or design exceptions the new zoning would eliminate the PD. Following the
rezone, the applicants would convert a freestanding two-story recreation building containing
several meeting rooms, a spa and sauna room, and restroom facilities into a residential unit. The
proposed conversion of the recreation building to a condominium residential unit would
primarily involve interior alterations to convert the community building to a two-bedroom
residence. The footprint of the 2,015 square foot building would not be enlarged; however, a new
single-car garage would be constructed to serve the proposed residential unit similar to existing
garages serving adjacent units. The condominium unit would be available for sale following
completion of the remodeling and recordation of subdivision map for the unit. Currently, the
recreation unit is part of a common lot within the condominium project.
Aftach,-ntzrt 6
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The Windermere condominium development is a 49-unit complex that was constructed in 1980
on a 3.7 acre site at the comer of Oceanaire Drive and Los Osos Valley Road. There are forty 2-
bedroom units and nine 3-bedroom units (for a total site density of 53.5 dwelling units).The
northwest boundary of the site is bordered by Prefumo Creek. The existing condominiums are
laid out in a courtyard style setting, each with individual garages.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan map Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density
Residential, Rezoning from R-2-PD to R-3, Minor Subdivision to allow the development and
sale of a new condominium unit.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
CRY OF SAN LUIS Oemp0 2 INRIAL STUCY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2006
i ? Attachment 6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si rJ ificance.
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing ani' x r y
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/ C;15
Attachment 6
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in aft earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
-19 6a
Signa Date
pat m 2,l a.2;C-6; _ rAw i m DDe edt. M-. For:John Mandeville,.
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LutS OBISeo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachmert 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that.are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant.Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately.analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation.measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 5 MmAI_STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting 61,.,iation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER#45 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AES=TICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited' -X-;
to; irees;�rock outcroppings;open'space,and hisOfic'buildings:
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X-
• •.the site and its urroundings7 xt
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would L
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
The project entitlement will allow an existing recreation building to be converted into a residential condominium unit with a
new 2 car garage.No changes to the existing aesthetics on site or off-site are anticipated.No new development is proposed as
part of the project No new sources of light or changes to the visual quality of the site are proposed.
Conclusion
No impacts to aesthetics are anticipated.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland;Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 6 �X=
Statewide,importance(Farmland),,as shown on the maps
pursuan(to the Farmland.Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
u) ^Conflict with existing zoning fdr agricultural use or a 6x J
Williamson Act contract? .
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 6 ;
their location or nature,could.result in conversion of Farmland
..,• to Tion-agricultural use?
Evaluation
The existing project involves a zone change for an existing developed condominium project.The property is not available for
agricultural resources. Surrounding properties are currently developed with residential uses and are not utilized for any form
of agricultural uses.
Conclusion
No' acts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject:
a) : Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air -
quality plan?
b) Vidlate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an w?C_
existing of`Projected air quality violation?
i) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria -X
,pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an,
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing.eu"sions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone-precursors)?
d) Expose sensitiveTeceptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ;
'e)•: Create'objectionable odors'affecting a substantialnumberof X
CIry of SAN Luis Osispo 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEctaisT 2006
C;�e
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In. iation Sources sources Foteniiahy Potentially tus Than No
significant significant significant Impact
ER#45-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Evaluation
The existing project involves a zone change for an existing developed condominium project. The conversion of an existing
recreation building into a residential unit will not create significant additional air quality impacts. Surrounding properties are
currently developed with residential uses and are not utilized for any form of agricultural uses.
Conclusion
No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) ,. woe a substantial adveise effect either directly ter through' 6
habttatllmddrf cations,on any species identified as a candidate;
sensitive iOrspecial status species in local-or regional'plans,
-policies,.or regulations,or by the Califori4a.)Department of Fish.,
and Game or U.S,--Ftp i and Wildlife Servtce5" .
.
b) Have a substantial adveise effect,on any riparian habitat or 6X.
other.setisittva natural community-identitted in local or,,regional
plans;palictes,or regulations,of by the Cal forma Ikoai ment
of Fish and Gattie br U.S.Fish and Wililtdf Service?, .
c)=`Have a:suhUdiiiial adverse effect on federally prptected wetlands 6 l
asriei in Section 404 of the Clean WaterAet.(inciudi
deftng,but;
not limited to,marsh,vernal�poolj coastal,etc.)':thronA direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other meansv
id)
Interfere substantiullywitb emovementofanynadverestdenf _ 6 •';X—
or migratoryfish 9t wildlife species or wt#1t estabhshed•na4ve
restdenf tic migratory wildlife corii�ors,or ttripede the use'of
native wildlife nurserysites?
e `Conflict*ith any localpolicies or.ordinancesprotecdng '." 6 X='
14016 Jpal,fesources, •such as a•tree preservatioo:policy,or.
,ordmance?
I>oat6Cf ith the provisions of im.adopted habitat Conservation . 2,6
Plan;Natural Community'Conservation Plan or;other approved:,:.
: : losial,re 9na1,_bi-'statahabitatcon
seryaGori
Evaluation
Although the project is adjacent to a seasonal creek(Prefumo Creek), no new improvements are proposed within,or adjacent
to,the creek area The proposed conversion of the recreation unit into a residential unit is greater than 100 feet from the top of
the creek bank, and no modifications to existing improvements in the vicinity of the creek are proposed. No other known
biological resources are known to be associated with the existing developed condominium site.
Conclusion
No impacts to biological resources are anticipated.
S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
esu—414
5tandaf adverse change in:the pWt-im_canoe o a 6
Itistoiicsburce as:defined in CEQPi Crmde]tnes 1115 64:5 ,
..
b);,'Cause asubstanfial adverse change in the significance.of an 6
archaeolCo tca6resouree pursuant to C1rQA Guidelines i,
n3- ;�§1SQ64S)' w. t j ,fin Y
pc) IStr 01yor indirectly destroy a unique paleontijlogtc�l resour�e`�`.
or site or uniquegeologic features
r r• r • �
d) tsturlrany human zematns`,.includmg 3hose entered rtutside of
d i ri .fotmat_eemeteie's?
valuation
The project does not involve development within a known archeological resource site. No historic structures are associated
with the project. No new excavations or significant construction are proposed with this project. The existing recreation
building was constructed in 1980 and the building will remain the same with the exception of interior improvements to
CRY OF SAN LUIS OeisPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
. � aq
Issues, Discussion and Supporting In, nation Sources Sources Potentiany Potentiauy "T111r,d t• I It6
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#45-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
convert it into a residential unit.
Conclusion
No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a); Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4 -X
:effects,inclWing flik of leq §s;injury or dea,hmvo yutg.
I. Ru
p _r&of a known eaitltquake ault;as delineated-Gin the` 4 X=
most recent Alquist-Ptiolo Earthquake ?ault Zoning
t assged by'the State iGeol-Ogist for the areh or based;on other
tub"-tial evidence of a known fault?Re i-t.Ot"IxAlsi6tt of':
Mtnes dud Geol(Zgy Special Publication 42 f,
II Strcfigsetsmic ground slinlang? 4
1411.,' Seismic related grotmd failure,inciudtng hquefaEtaao? 4 $=
IV LtZdslttles?
b) ;.Resultinsub�tanfial soil erosion or the loss of,topsoil-?X`"
c) Be located on a geologic utSit or soil thatis itnstable%,or that `; X;
would become unstable as a result.of the�ro�j6ot;,and potentially
result ria on or off site]andsli& lateralspre&din' 'subsidence, `tt.
hiluefaction or collapse?
d) Be located:on expahsive soil,ass defined tlt Table 18 1 B f
c x , fin foci# uildmg Cozie creating substat al risks to life;
e,
r tjrpYo�erty?�, T;' r
Nave sgilsFmcapable of adeguatelysu Sorting the use o septic,`
y, tanks oraltetnattve>vtrasta water disposal systems,whereewers•`
n F
aGaitaBliS.,forthe dj ""'sal of Was water.?
Evaluation
No new structures, with the exception of a two-car garage, are proposed. The conversion of the existing recreation building
into a unit will require a City building permit and the unit will need to meet current building code requirements including
features necessary to withstand seismic related issues. Although the location is within an area known to seismic activity
related to nearby faults,conversion of the existing recreational facility for single family use does not increase the danger from
earthquakes or related geologic issues.
Conclusion
Less than significant-No impacts to geology and soils are anticipated.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect:
a) t Create'asigtttfioanitta (gthepulilirttetevatouuentX'
f [pugtytl�e rgtittoe e,_transport or disposal.o �tazardous
matedals? „
t1sr=ttgate�agitiiaCagtfia2ardHoslte publie Qr ttie.eivtrQnmeint
=-
.,
�,:kthrougtt<�easonably foreseeable ups�f and acctdeu1t6ohdtti6ns
_�tuvol�ng't�texelease of Satardous mate�s3ntoithn
c)' Etiu4halzaidous etniipn or handle ha�arc�ons3'r acutely �' s
x z alar fl
I- haar8otrs materials;substances;or}caste vStthin one�cuarter
#nitlt df an ciusangor prone d ahclpl? Y ;
r;+ `
' Bertocated onXaSite.which`s included ona hsGofhazardous •' PA
t Y {tiaterinls, tes conipiied4tt tlantto Gove7rnntent trode ectton
' �'G5962`�S arid,as a result;wotil'd it�create a significagt'hazar�l��o, '
eit
Ftn a o`' eiltlittih land use, a`rl r.�vhere
CITY of SAN Luis OatsPO 8 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
1-3o
. Aftac iment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Cation Sources Sooner Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#45-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco
such a plan has not been adopted,within.two miles of a public
airport or public use airport;�*ciuld the project-restiltin a safety.
hazard for.people residing or working in the.,project area.
For a project ect vi Min the vicinity.of a pnvate•airstri ,woi d the, L X
^,Prolecumsult'in a"safety hazard for,people residing or t- 'k µ'
in the projectwea?.
g)' Impair implementation of or physically interfere with,.i;adopted' X
etneigency respgnse plan oremergency evact ation plan?
Ji) Eitpose.people br stiuctures to:a.significantrisk'oflose','1114 ,
or death involving wildlaiiid fires,including where wildlaii&are:,
adjacent to urbanized areas.4,4hererestdences are inteiinixedc
With wiltllarids?.
Evaluation
No new structures,with the exception of a two-car garage,are proposed.No known hazards are associated with the developed
property.The subject property is not within an airport zone.
Conclusion
No impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated.
& HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would thero'ect:
.
a) Viol _
ate any water qualfly standards or.waste aischazgg. .'
requrenienfs?
b),`; 6ubsfantially deplete groundwafer supplies,of interfere
rrf y substantially with groundwater recharge such tfiat'there.wotSld be
�.. .
a net def cit rn aguiifer volume or.a loweniig pf the locales
{ 4grotmdw`ater table'Igvsl'(e,g:the pro it on rate of pre=eid,ing-.
.nearby",
-wells would drop to a level w}tcir wonid;not support
= existing land uses yr planned`uses for ivhich:petnuts hake"been
`, •.panted} -' ,
n c) • Substanf ally alter the eiaisting draznage pattern of the'site.or A
incladmg:thrbugh-didalterfibri afthecou se of -steamor-
,?gi�er,an a >ter which wouldsesult M substatitfal erosion nr
;°'siltation on�,dr off situ
d) ,Substantially alter theexisting draznage pattern of the site of , Ml
area,is uditig-th'oti0i the alteration af#he'coCtrse of a eamo>
Iver-W substantially mcr 49!%6�,iate•oryaitio4nt o ttrfaccr' j
t
' imoff inh,.manuer�which wopliisresui t tloo u -0n op off site
�e�t t4e,8te or Contri6dte rpnoff 3patei^Vhich woul •eoee{l khe x;. {=
-Ca�dttybf OXisttng.orlanne8 storm waterratnage systems off::,
provide+substantiataddihonal sources ofpollute8sttnoft"?
;Otherwise.substantially degrade waterrilui1Jty?% 0! 4
.Plaid hotismg within a lOtl year flood!&arrd,a ea`as mapped on." 1 REA
a federal Flood Hazard Bou'tidary orFlood Insurance Rate Map ;_
s .or otharflood hazaid rleliiteahon in p'r
h) Place*ithi ailOQ-yearlldod haza>daceastruclures which I X
world impede or retired flood fld"-7
t) °Expose`peopI oritiuctures.tosigmfcantnsk�flosstinJtiryor r 1,
death involving flooding 'Iudmgflooding as•asesuif of tl e
1?.failure of:a levee ora6i7 ' • fig`"mow, ;p a ,,;d,.
?' iiundatioa b seiclie;'tsuiiiatiii,drinu"dflow?
Evaluation
No changes to the existing drainage plan are proposed.As constructed,the existing condominiums do not result in any known
CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 9 INMAL STUDY EWMONMENTAL CNECKUST 2006
1-31
,"� %achmert, C
Issues, Discussion and Supportin4It. nation Sources Sources Potcntiall) Potentially
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#45-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
impacts to area hydrology. No known history of significant flooding has occurred at the property.Although a portion of the
existing condominiums are within a 100-year flood zone as identified on FEMA flood.maps,no new construction is proposed
within the flood zone. The conversion of the existing recreation building into a unit is not within the flood zone. Amending
the property's zoning from R-2-PD to R-3 will not result in impacts to area hydrology.
Conclusion
No impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Physically divide an established community? 2 -X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation 2 .-x-J
of an agency with jurisdiction over -the project adopted'
(including, but not limited to the general plan; specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any-applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 2 X-
community conservationplan?
Evaluation
The proposed amendment to the General Plan will allow the current development to more closely comply with general plan
density standards while allowing the property to have a zoning designation that is compatible to adjacent properties. The,
proposed project to add one additional unit is not anticipated to create land use conflicts and is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies. After consultation with the Planning Commission on December 14,
2005,the applicant was directed to pursue the currently requested General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
Conclusion
No impacts Land Use and Planning are anticipated.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) •Result in the loss'of availability of a known mineral 'resource . C:$
that would be of value io the region and the tesidents of the
state?
b) -Result id the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
if c an or other land use plan?__
Evaluation
No excavation or grading is associated with the project. There are no known mineral resources associated with the property
or within the adjacent vicinity. Amending the General Plan for this developed site is not likely to create additional
development opportunities nor impact mineral resources.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)`',.Eatpo,s. of persons toot generation of mom" .levels imexcess of ' 3
•standards.established in the local general plan-ornoise
,ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b): Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1A41
vibration of grouudborne noise levels?
x) -A substantial permanent increase in arnbtenf noise levels in the }
projeci vicinity above levels existing without'tlie protect?
A)- A substantial tentpctrmy of periodic increase in ambient parse
=levels an the project vteinity,above levels existing withpig the
:,.project?
for a prgjec"t lgcated within an airport land use plan,or where: - 5 Gam'
=:.subh a lanhas not been adopted,within.iwo miles of a: ublie
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Aftachmert 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting nation Sources Sources Potentia_; Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues unless impact
ER#45-06 Mitigation
Inco rated
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive,noise levelt?
f) For a project within The vicinity of a private airs*,would the 5
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
-:eicessJve.n6ise'leve1s?.-.
Evaluation
Noise issues are commonly associated with traffic noise sources or commercial land uses which produce excessive noise. In
this case,the design of the condominiums and the distance to nearby roadways eliminates potential noise exposure. The new
residential unit is not within a location that is subject to significant noise exposure. No significant noise exposure issues exist
at the property today,and the configuration of the units facing a central courtyard is designed to reduce or eliminate any noise
from surrounding roadways.
Conclusion
No impacts associated with noise are anticipated.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial_population growth in an area,either directly r-N;-!
(for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or
ipilinctly. (for example, through extension of loads or other
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the,construction of replacement housing elsewhere?,
'0141ice- 'substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction oireplacernent housing elsewhere?
Evaluation
Amending the General Plan will allow the applicants to add one more dwelling unit at the property at this time. No units
would be removed and the increase of one unit within an existing building is not likely to produce impacts to population and
housing.
Conclusion.
No impacts associated with population and housing are anticipated.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times-or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
b) Police prot&,rtion-Y, 1 41-
r
c) Schools? L;
4) Park$
;44
Evaluation
The existing condominiums are adequately served by City public services. The addition of one dwelling unit will create
negligible impacts to available public services.
Conclusion
No impacts associated with public services are anticipated.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject-
'ri -'the use of existing neighborhood orreiioiiii pa&.o'r..*
Zotherr
: em-bationalfhAties such that subtantlal,physridd
deterioration ofthe fa ilitv would occur or be accelerated?'
b :., Include recreational facilities or require the.
oft.ecreatiobil facilities wbichimgbt.baye,'an,W*drse,,";
CRY OF SAN Luis OBispo MmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
133
``
Issues, Discussion and Supporting 111t .,ation Sources sources Poten .� lotentially I i Tl", •"'No'
Significant Significant significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER#45-06
Mitigation
Incorporated
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
The project involves the conversion of an indoor recreation center (including a Jacuzzi, and indoor recreation room) into .a
dwelling unit. The loss of the indoor recreation unit is proposed to be replaced by outdoor passive recreation uses within a
common green space in the center of the condominium complex. The removal and replacement of the indoor recreation unit
is likely to have less than significant impacts to nearby public recreation facilities since the completed project will maintain
some level of on-site recreation amenities.The project is also situated adjacent to neighborhood parks and a City golf course.
The addition of one dwelling unit within the complex will have less than significant impacts to area parks.
Conclusion
Less than significant impacts associated with recreation facilities are antici ated.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) : Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to.,the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.;result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips;the
volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
'b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service =X
standard established by the county congestion management.
agency for designated roads and highways?
c_) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an :;X=
ioctease in traffic levels or a change in location that results in, ,
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to design feattires*(e.g.,sharp =X
curves o;dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses,(e.g.
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
} Result in inadequate parking capacity?
'_g) Conflict, th adopted policies;plans,or programs supporting X'
alternative transportation e. .bus turnouts,bicycle-racks)?
Evaluation
The existing condominitmm are adequately served by City streets and the condominium project currently has a parking and
driveway system that complies with the City's current standards. The addition of one dwelling unit will create negligible
impacts to transportation since no changes are proposed to the on-site or off-site circulation system and the present system
operates at acceptable levels of service.
Conclusion
No impacts associated with transportation/traffic are anticipated.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) ,£iitceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable7X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Requireor result in the construction or expansion'of new watery
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant. .
environmentat:effects7
e) Require-oi resultin the construction of nein storm water
drainage facilities or-.Expansion of existing,facilities-the
cttnsti action of whiel could+cause signif"!environmental
h
:. . Y
sl). 1lave.sufficient watersti ies ayailable to serve,the project X
Arom.eiti`stm ientit ements and ources-mare new sail
CnY of SAN Luis Oetspo 12 INMAL STUDY ErmRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2006
/ -3y
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting I),..nation Sources Sources Potents—j( Potentially IA=Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#45-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
expanded entiderneri s needed?
t)',' Result in a'detentriiiation b
• y the w astewater•treatinenZ jnovider is
which serves Or may serve the project that it has adept afe'�
c,pataty-o sdrve.thp project's projected demand in addition to .;
=�thg provid'er's exist ng�conumtment
f) -Be served by a landfillwith.sufficient permitted capacity to- =X-;
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?,
gJ''Corn ply fiuith federal,state,and localta'tutes and"'regulations
related to solid;wa'st' e,
Evaluation
The existing condominiums are adequately served by City Utilities services. No new storm drains or utilities infrastructure
will be necessary. The property.contains an existing storm drain easement that will be maintained following the map
amendment. The existing condominium project and recreation unit are currently served by city water.The conversion of the
recreation unit and the addition of one dwelling unit will create negligible impacts to available utilities services.
Conclusion
No impacts associated with utilities services are anticipated.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a� :Does the`pcoject have.the,pdtential tri degrade xhe quality of the
-environinent substantially reduce the_lrabitat of"a fish or wildlife
G ;,species,.caase a 5sh or wrldlife population to drop beloWsseif -
sustartong.le'vels;threaten to eliniinate.a plant or arti'mi
coarmunity,reduceYhe number or restrict the range of a rare or .r
o
;entlangerb�lrplantor an"anal Or eliminate impor ant examples of
s,r,the..ma o1r :%iAds of Galifo�inia Hi$to, .o> iliisto
j,'I56e0tSee, rent have tmpaRs drat are individually lun fed,but -X
rvr f :cuwull}tiVely ronsiderable� ('Cumulatively considerable." r
,�r '.3n�atis tliait
(I fail effects b1a project are i onsiderable a'
.ivhea nerved k connection wstli the effects o&the past projects,
Yi►effet ts:af other current proaects and the effects of probable
yz,';iPflittl[LI' •[O eCt$.� - '." _
-ars' s - r - -
-:,
:hoes rhOpr0o t have environmental effects awhlch will causes aX~
F substaiitial'adver effects on human hetngs eittiei ducctly o�
�zr -rtid'uectl ''t �< _� .�•.� * � z�
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
/ 3S
Attachment 6
I&EARLMR ANALYSES.
Earlier anatys sway be used where,pursuant to the.tier'- program EIR, or other CEQA process; one o;more effects have
f Xx 1
been adequately analj�zeditn an;earlier<EIR or Neat�i�eecfa�ahon %;SebttaydS 13063rEc) (3) (D : In tats case a'discusstoi►
houldide _" the"foilow6Ate-nis.
a} Eariet'iiW 'sis used 3den' eazlie Gnat se?:and state where;t'he' ac availab a fo zev�ew.:,
b) Impacts_adequatgly addresse&-ldenttfy,whict-effecrsfrom the'aliove'che6kltst we a vv�tlui (herscope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier docum8nt pursuant to applica'b'le legal sta=ndards,and state whether,such effects were addressed by.
.' . .`ynttig atioa measures based
on the earlier,anal sis
c):+Mtftgatiop measures For effects that ares"Less=than'Sgmfican[to N�itigat�op Incorporated;" describe the tn,hgaaon.
_t�teasuces:vVhach were tncbrporated or-iefined from the�ear`Iter dQeument and the extetYtto which tltey address site-specific.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Flood Insurance Rate (Community Panel 0603100005 dated July 7, 1981
2. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,December 2004
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element&Guidebook
4. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
5. SLO County ort Land Use Plan
6. City of SLO GIS database
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed map identifying recreation unit to be converted into a condominium unit and new garage.
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP DESIGNATION
FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR PROPERTY AT 1106 OCEANAIRE DRIVE
GP/R/MS/ER 45-06
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 10, 2006 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/MS/ER 45-06,
Windermere Homeowner's Association, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 19, 2006 for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/MS/ER 45-06; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation
of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the
independent judgment of the Commission.
2. The proposed General Plan map amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element policies regarding multi-family residential zoning since the existing project is
consistent with the Medium-High Density Residential land use description and the project
is within a location that creates a logical extension of the R-3 district.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Housing Element since it
logically allows for higher density residential zoning and an additional dwelling unit
without impacting adjacent properties or the existing layout of the condominiums.
4. The proposed recreation amenities are suitable to replace the indoor recreation amenities
37
4
Council Resolution No. (2006 Se(es) Attachment 7
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 2
and comply with the intent of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
5. The proposed minor subdivision to allow the individual sale of one new residential unit in
place of the recreation unit is consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations.
6. The pedestrian easement will facilitate necessary recreational amenities to the
condominium project as required by the Municipal Code for large scale condominium
projects in the R-3 zone, since the proposed path and bridge will allow direct access to a
public park.
7. The pedestrian easement is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies, LU
2.1.4, 2.2.6 and 2.2.12 which encourage the incorporation of neighborhood linkages and
pedestrian connections.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council hereby approves a General Plan LUE map amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Medium-High Density Residential as shown on attached Exhibit A, approval of a
minor subdivision to allow one new airspace condominium unit and adoption of Negative
Declaration (ER 45-06), with incorporation of the following project conditions:
Conditions:
1. The drainage easement at the northeasterly property line shall be preserved and modified
to accommodate the existing drainage culvert below the parking and driveway area.
2. An easement shall be provided adjacent to the northeast property line to allow for public
pedestrian access to Prefumo Creek. This easement will not be utilized until such a time
that the City constructs improvements to allow a path and bridge over the creek to access
the existing park on Vista Lago. The final width and location of the easement shall be
approved by the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director while
considering the opinion of the Windermere HOA.
3. A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior
to recordation of the map. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, site
drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any utility company meters for each
parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations shall be completed with proper permits prior
to recordation of the map. Otherwise, easements shall be prepared and recorded to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director and serving
utility companies.
4. An architectural review application (ARCMs shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to issuance of construction permits for the
conversion of the recreation building and construction of the garage. The application shall
include proposed improvements to the common area to include replacement recreation
amenities. Construction plan approval for modifying the recreation unit shall be
contingent upon approval of required outdoor recreation amenities by the HOA.
Council Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 7
1106 Oceanaire Drive
Page 3
5. The common area recreation amenities shall be completed prior to occupancy of the new
residential unit and prior to recordation of a final map to allow individual sale of the unit.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jona an Lowell, City Attorney
Attachment 7
EXHIBIT A
I _
R-3 jos z
s0s O
G
9�� r
t
1106 Oceanaire
General Plan designation to be modified from Medium Density Residential to Medium High
Density Residential,Zoning from R-2-PD to R-3
i-yb
I\ \I r
Attachment 8
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT
1106 OCEANAIRE DRIVE FROM R-2-PD TO R-3
(GP/R/ER 45-06)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on May 10, 2006 and recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 45-06, a
request to amend the City's Zoning Map designations from R-2-PD to R-3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 19, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 45-06; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately.addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment
of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
2. The proposed General Plan map amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element policies regarding multi-family residential zoning since the existing project is
consistent with the Medium High Density Residential land use description and the project
is within a location that creates a logical extension of the R-3 district.
Attachment 8
Ordinance No. (2006 Series)
GP/R 45-06
Page 2
3. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Housing Element since it
logically allows for higher density residential zoning and an additional dwelling unit
without impacting adjacent properties or the existing layout of the condominiums.
4. The proposed recreation amenities are suitable to replace the indoor recreation amenities
and comply with the intent of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
5. The proposed minor subdivision to allow the individual sale of one new residential unit in
place of the recreation unit is consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations.
6. The pedestrian easement will facilitate necessary recreational amenities to the
condominium project as required by the Municipal Code for large scale condominium
projects in the R-3 zone, since the proposed path and bridge will allow direct access to a
public park.
7. The pedestrian easement is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies, LU
2.1.4, 2.2.6 and 2.2.12 which encourage the incorporation of neighborhood linkages and
pedestrian connections.
SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 19-05) is
hereby approved (Exhibit A).
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the 19th day of September, 2006, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of 2006, on the following
roll call vote:
/-ya
Attachment 8
Ordinance No.(2006 Series)
GP/R 45-06
Page 3
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cit Gmey Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDAWindemere GPR 45-06\GPR 45-06 DRAFT cc ord.doc
/-y.3
Attachment 8
EXHIBIT A
C7 � l
I
Q
R-3 0 \
SpSL O
R-3
i
1106 Oceanaire
General Plan designation to be modified from Medium Density Residential to Medium High
Density Residential,Zoning from R-2-PD to R-3
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil Support of Bridge Casement for Laguna Middle School
RECEIVED
From: Rod Hoadley <rhoadley@juno.com>
To: <slocitycounal@slocity.org> SEP 19 2006
Date: 9/18/2006 10:00 PM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Support of Bridge Easement for Laguna Middle School
Dear City Council:
I have elementary school age children who will be riding their bicycles
to Laguna Middle School in the future. I really urge the council to
support the proposed bridge easement that would link the neighborhoods of
Laguna Middle School and C.L. Smith Elementary that are separated by
Prefumo Creek. The bridge easement would allow my kids to ride bicycles
to and from Laguna Middle School over Perfumo Creek without having to
travel on Los Osos Valley Rd. I think this proposal would not only make
cycling safer for my family, it would help to reduce traffic congestion
and air pollution.
Rod Hoadley
637 Woodbridge St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
AR. L
IF COUNCIL CDD DIP,
R CAO s FIN DIR
RED FILE B ACAO �] FIRE CHI€F
NA IN AGENDA ®'ATTORNEY ) PW DIR
ZCLERK/ORIG tf POLICE CHF
pq q 9 ATEM # 1 0 DEPT HEADS (2, REC DIR
UTIL DIR
u HR DIR
T CAO
-f C q-nu o i o A-7-6-s
file;//C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\LocaI%20Settings\Temp\GW}0000I.HTM 9/19/2006
i 1
�`p�E ONfy San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition
PO Box 14860 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-4860
m
I Adam Fukushima, Executive Director
Phone: 805-541-3875
9�CuC�'2''C'UaI(fIU�; Email: adamf@slobikelane.org
September 21, 2006
City Council RECEIVED
City of San Luis Obispo Q70 2 s 2�aS
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Members of Council,
On behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition, I would like to thank you for
providing the $60,200 match for the recently awarded Caltrans Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) grant of$541,800 for the construction of Phase 4 of the Railroad Safety Trail. The BTA
is a competitive grant, and the Bicycle Coalition was glad to support the City's application.
Peggy Mandeville of City Public Works did an excellent job in putting together a strong
application and remained persistent even after several failed applications in the past. Her efforts
should be commended.
Thank you also for keeping the option of an easement for creek access at the Windermere
Condominiums for a possible bridge. The good news is that the new federal SAFETEA-LU
transportation funding includes over $500 million just for Safe Routes to School(SR2S). In fact,
most of those funds are set aside just for infrastructural improvements. Since California already
has a robust SR2S program in place, we are in a good position to apply for that funding. The
Bicycle Coalition would be pleased to work with the City to acquire those funds.
Thank you for your leadership not only for the bicycle community but also for being a strong
advocate for physical activity, a livable community, and public safety.
Kind regards, C14 0
,qCs� D
The San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization working to transform
SLO County into a safer and more livable community by promoting bicycling and walking for everyday
transportation and recreation.For more information, visit www.slobike.lane.org.
Adam Fukushima
Executive Director,-San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-Council Meeting Tue SeI p..19,Item 1: Easement for bicycle/ped.path
From: Eugene Jud<ejud@calpoly.edu> RECEIVED
To: City Council SLO<slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 9/17/2006 12:47 PM SEP 18 2006
Subject: Council Meeting Tue Sept. 19,Item 1:Easement for bicycle/ped.path
SLO-CITY CL-EBK-
Dear Mayor and Council Members
Please approve the above easement proposed by the Planning Commission and Staff which is much needed,especially for children of the
Middle School along LO VR.
In the case of the South Street Road Diet you recently gave a thumbs up to alternative transportation,such as pedestrians and cyclists.I thank
you for that.Also at Cal Poly we see a renewed interest by students in these transportation modes.
Thank you for your efforts towards a more livable and less car oriented SLO.
Eugene Jud,Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
At:
Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Phone: (805) 756-1729
Or:
Jud Consultants
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Phone and Fax: (805) 545-5919
L
COUNCIL CDD DIR
9 CAO FIN DIR
�ACAO FIRE CHIEF RED FILE
ATTORNEY b PW DIR
IR CLERK/OR-n POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA
❑ DEPT HE.AS REC DIF; DA 9 i9 TEM # 2{�
Pte, LeUTILDIR
TRrG HR OR
file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 9/18/2006